Red card

(with thanks to Michael Shaw)

1. Introduction

This week, once more we see ourselves with the need to ‘procrastinate’ the analysis of the NPIA Operation Task debrief document which we published 2 weeks ago.

Last week it was because of the demise of the Woman-in-Purple, a fact that we deemed of the utmost importance to the case.

Scratching her from this sick play makes the Maddie case come down to only one of 2 possible outcomes: truth or shambolic archival.


2. The RNICVI Museum

The Woman-in-Purple can now be seen in the Royal National Intelligence Challenging and Vomit Inducing Museum, which is exclusively dedicated to the Maddie case.

She’s now there together with the Bungled Burglars and the European Human Trafficking Gang in the Intelligence Challenging and Vomit Inducing Invented Characters section, next to the Pimpleman, Crèche Dad, Burgundy/Sagresman and cloth-footed Summers & Swann’s Bungleman.

Next to this section there’s the Intelligence Challenging and Vomit Inducing Stories from Real People.

That’s where visitors can appreciate the likes of the Tapas 9, Stephen Carpenter, Neil Berry, Raj Balu, Pamela Fenn, Jeremy Wilkins, TS, Derek Flack, Robert and Jenny Murat, John Hill, the Mark Warner Nanny Girl’s Band, the Tapas Choir Group and the Ocean Club orchestra. Lot’s to see there.

Then there are the 2 separate pavilions that are highly recommended: one dedicated to the bogus sightings and the other for the finger-pointed poor and powerless, used and abused.

The museum also has a library. Filled with only books, written by Danny Collins, Kate McCann and Summers & Swann.

The bulk of this library is made up of tabloid articles, signed by Lazzeri, Kandohla and Lawton, just to name 3 of many, many others.

There are too many others to list here but it would be undoubtedly interesting to have them all listed so all can see.

They have sold their souls, the least they deserve is to be remembered.

But the biggest attraction to visit there is the Internet Dungeon. Where the darkest and sickest human-like creatures are exhibited.

The dungeon has many, many names, many known to us all but most of which will be unfamiliar to those who have only started to follow the case after Operation Grange started.

Many handles have gone, some of which are still around but only have lost all importance and have gone unnoticed by the new generation, but for those of us, who had to put up with their very real threats, the names of these creatures or aliases, are very familiar.

And it is this dungeon that made us postpone the post about the Operation Task debrief and that was what we found out recently about one of these varmints, a foot soldier, and which we deem to have been be of the highest of pertinence to the case.

We are obviously talking about Nigel Nessling AKA Vee8, being sentenced by an Ipswich court for downloaded over 40,000 indecent images of children.

As we’ll see, it was a very hard blow to the shambolic archival option. Meaning, a good thing for the truth.


3. Maddie and paedophilia

Unlike other so-called truth-seekers who do all they can, pretending to ignore the elephant in the room, to avoid touching even with a 20-foot stick, anything that relates swinging with the Maddie’s death, we do not ignore the presence and relevance of paedophilia in this case.

We simply don’t accept that it was the direct or indirect cause of Maddie’s death.

However, we don’t just say “we’re not seeing paedophilia justifying the cover-up, so it isn’t paedophilia”, we try to present our arguments of why we think that way.

About that, on one hand it seems inconceivable to us why would so many who are fully aware of the exact details of what has indeed happened in Luz on that night, would go out of their way to lie for a nepiophile, or many of them, who raped a 4 yr old child to death.

Using the sex-pest list as an example, and taking out of it all the consensual stuff that should never have been there in the first place but only focusing on the inappropriate behaviour of those listed, it’s realistic to think there are many people who were aware of what was happening and covered it up.

A pretty uncomfortable situation for people to find themselves in. After all, they are aware they have covered for despicable and criminal behaviour.

However, there’s no comparison in ignominy between paedophilia and sexual harassment, and let’s be clear, the latter is absolutely repulsive.

And if Maddie was killed as a result of sexual abuse, it wouldn’t be paedophilia but nepiophilia, something ranked much higher in a scale of abhorrence.

Unless in the UK paedophilia is considered acceptable social behaviour, which we don’t think it is, then it would be impossible to have so many involved in the cover-up.

Not talking only about those listed in our the Museum we have just invented, but also about people with respectable jobs, reputations to uphold and most importantly, consciences to appease.

We are speaking of people like the ones who worked or work in the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, like the policemen of the Met and of the Leicestershire Constabulary, the ones of CEOP, scientists who gave their names alongside John Lowe in the FSS report and so many others who are respected in their professional and personal circles and feel absolutely comfortable with their consciences in having participated and in participating actively in a cover-up.

And of course we are also speaking of those in the Praia da Luz area, British immigrants and Portuguese, who also have participated and are participating in the hoax:

As implied by the “amaral underestimated all the persons involved at the case of Praia da Luz”, on the tweet above, it seems some pro-McCann (who we have reason to believe was Nessling or one of his supporters) is of the opinion, with which we fully agree, that many in Luz were involved in making sure Mr Amaral didn’t get to the truth.

Would that be so if at the bottom of this was the death of a 4 yr old from sexual abuse? We don’t think so.

One just has to see as an example what is happening in the pro-camp because of Nessling. The flak they are getting on social media because of their association with this convicted paedophile. They are being mercilessly taunted.

(picture from here)

To be seen associated with a paedophile is like having a repulsive contagious disease.

And these are people we know to be evil. Evil people now struggling with the fact that one of them has been proven to be a paedophile.

One just has to look at how social media has flamed up with this Nessling thing and how it is making sure that all those ‘near’ him receive an enormous amount of judgement and criticism, to immediately understand that all those we have listed in having participated in the cover-up would have never agreed to help a nepiophile or nepiophiles, in covering up his/their crime in the way we have seen so many agree to help out in the Maddie hoax.

There’s simply no such power in this world capable of subjugating such a collective to agree to such a forbidden thing.

We do, however, see as very realistic having all the people listed in participating in a cover-up to protect people who would be caught in something that a very judgmental society deems to be highly immoral and reprehensible even though it’s between consensual adults and absolutely legal: swinging.

Like covering up for a friend’s affair. One knows one shouldn’t but one does it out of friendship.

If that ‘friend’ happens not to be a friend at all but a boss or someone who holds something that is of one’s interest for whatever personal or professional reason, one does it not out of friendship but out of interest, fear or both.

In this case, and that is the reality of life, one even allows oneself to cover-up for reprehensible things like sexual harassment or other reprehensible things.

It all boils down to the question each one asks themselves when in such a situation: if I do this, will I be able to justify myself to myself? If the answer is yes, then one does it. Those who say they don’t are simply lying.

We’re not seeing so many people, the ones we have listed above answering affirmatively to that question if all revolved around the death of a sexually molested little girl.

That’s why we say “we’re not seeing paedophilia justifying the cover-up” not because it wouldn’t be strong enough to justify it but because it would be way too strong to have people so engaged as we have seen.

But the reader may ask, why, if it is swinging, would people accept to be paedos just to avoid being outed swingers?

The answer to that question is simple: only one person is being implied of being one and that is David Payne.  No other one, out of hundreds present there is. That means that these hundreds remain with their reputation intact.

Why has Payne accepted without a known reaction to have a paedo shadow looming over him?

It shows how unbalanced the power imbalance between him and whoever told him to accept that heinous fate and be quiet, is.

We’ve never said an individual couldn’t be subjugated to do what he’s told to do however unpleasant or even disastrous for him that may be, what we’re saying is that it’s impossible to subjugate such a collective made up of a wide variety of respected people who would lose so much if it was proven they helped a murderous nepiophile escape justice.

But we can only speak for ourselves, the only thing we can do is present our arguments which we have done.

If then people continue to disagree with us, in peace with their conscience, we have only to respect that.

If people disagree just to disagree, we’ll simply ignore.

If they disagree only to pursue an agenda, to protect some over others of those involved, that makes them as much as a criminals as all those we have listed above who have participated in the hoax.

A half-truth is never the truth. A truth with part of it intentionally hidden, is not truth. A half-truth is always a lie, a hoax.

People with an agenda are ultimately only helping perpetuate the hoax, no matter how genuinely they wish to see the McCanns punished, as they are merely pursuing a ‘truth’, one that has to exclude those they are protecting, so just a half-truth.

And please note, when we say “we’re not seeing paedophilia justifying the cover-up” we’re NOT saying that paedophilia has nothing to do with the case.

We not only think it has, as we think it has played a relevant part in it.

To be clear so we’re not misunderstood: we don’t think paedophilia has anything to do, directly or indirectly, with Maddie’s death or with anything that was happening at the time of her death in Praia da Luz but we do think paedophilia has a lot to do with the cover-up that followed that same death.


4. The paedo planting

In our opinion, evidence points clearly towards paedophilia, specifically in the terms of it being directly related to Maddie’s death to be something planted into the case.

Via the Gaspar statements – strangely tardy and suspiciously introduced into the case – and via the Yvonne Martin statements – which have so many discrepancies that show very clearly that she and truth are not exactly well matched.

The empty CATS file only proves nothing was put in it because if someone went into the trouble of removing compromising documents from it, they would either make the entire thing disappear or then fill it up with innocuous stuff. There was certainly time and ways of doing either without it being publicly known. As we said, it was empty because like a kitchen jar we meant to fill up with strawberry jam, remains empty because we never got to buy the strawberries.


5. The usefulness of paedophilia

Paedophiles are people with a very high moral debt to society.

A debt so high that even the paedophile knows he cannot ever repay it and that places him in a very vulnerable position to be blackmailed.

Having information on paedophiles is very powerful information indeed and which many powerful use it in modern societies.

And we have no doubt that such kind of information has been used in the Maddie case.

If the paedophile is a powerful man, then the blackmail makes him do what is required of him, being it in favours or in exercising his influence wherever it’s needed.

If the paedophile is a powerless man, it makes his commitment in accomplishing the most shameless and disgusting tasks that he’s told to do to be absolute.


6. Nessling the foot-soldier

Nigel Nessling is a pro-McCann supporter using the handle Vee8, among others.

Nigel Nessling was not nor is a powerful man.

His participation was certainly not due to any favours he could fulfill or influence he could exercise. However, his commitment and shamelessness were precious to the defenders of the hoax.

A nasty and turgid piece of work who was used to ward people off the case with his extremely vicious verbal violence which implied a physical one.

Someone who was never there to debate but always to be aggressive.

Someone who fueled being considered deranged and making his derangement feared.

His home base was the Stop the Myths forum in which he as an admin however he was present in all pro-McCann sites, where he made his unpleasant presence felt.

The link between Nessling and the McCanns was always transparent and public, as Adrian Upshon (AKA Deuce is from Chaosraptors) has said in his blog “Angel 4 the Lost”:

“I have been involved with raising funds for children's charities for many years through a car club I belong to. However, the chairman of the club, Nigel Nessling and myself became further involved at a deeper and more personal level since Madeleine McCann disappeared. We both followed the case on-line in support of the McCann family's plight.

The reaction to our support was profound. Both myself and Nigel were stalked and intimidated by those who disliked McCann supporters at a level neither of us would have ever anticipated anyone would sink to. This of course only scratched at the surface of what the McCanns receive beyond the hurt and pain from not knowing what happened to their daughter.

Since then we became active for a UK charity supporting the parents of missing and exploited children and a support group helping the McCanns find Madeleine.”

We, like others, are find it very strange for the McCanns not having put out a statement detaching themselves from this particular supporter after his conviction.

One certainly cannot help or choose who supports us, but one can certainly choose whose support one does accept and endorse.

By omission of a clear rejection, the silence of the McCanns can only mean they accept and endorse the support of this convicted individual.


7. Gamble and Nessling

Before we get into the facts of Nessling’s conviction by an Ipswich court, let us say that something is pleasing us immensely.

And that’s how Jim Gamble’s name is gaining importance in this case in direct proportion with which Mitchell’s is finally fading away as it should.

Mitchell the pink shirted puppet was so transparent to spot that it hurt to see how all these years so many credited this individual with the capability of managing such a politically sensitive matter.

Fortunately, as we have been witnessing lately that is something that is ending, if not having done so already.

We have been exposing what we see to be Gamble’s importance in the case for years and finally we are being heard.

And in Nessling’s case we think there’s total reason to link him to Jim Gamble and we would go as far as even saying that theirs is a relationship of proximity.

First because it seems that pals Adrian Upshon and Nigel Nessling have been endorsed by CEOP as per tweet pictured above:

“Laffin@Mirror again
@veniviedivici

(link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rodderator/4448120267/)… Upshon and Nigel Nessling endorsed by #CEOP ? #McCann #scam

10:09 PM · Nov 28, 2017”

Besides that we also base the opinion that this proximity, between Gamble and Nessling, on a post published by Vee8/Nessling on Stop the Myths forum in a thread titled “That Summers and Swan book” on Sept 7 2014.

In our post “News pieces, Same game” published on Oct 10 2014, we transcribed, after censoring, what Vee8 had written in the Stop the Myths forum into the comment section of that post.

(screengrab from here)

We will now transcribe it here without any censoring:

“That Summers and Swan book
Posted by Vee8 – Sun Sep 07, 2014 9:37 am

A note to the anti-Madeleines.

You are going to hate this book, you are going to hate it with a burning passion bordering on the volcanic. Because it is going to destroy your fantasies, tear down your houses of cards and show you all to the general public as the rabid, drool-spilling trolls that you are. I know what your reaction will be. Just as with Kate’s book, on Amazon you will leave turgid, libellous and ignorant one star reviews, all in an attempt to scupper sales.

Don’t bother, Summers and Swan are Pulitzer-prize-winning authors with a fan-base that spans the known world. They will swamp your pathetic little attempts to tell the authors to ‘Read the Files,’ or ‘Google the Gaspar statements.’ A few dozen hater reviews will have ZERO effect on the sales next to the flood of five star reviews that will follow.

Actually, on second thoughts, yes. Do it. Leave your downgrading reviews. Your ignorance of the case, together with your hatred of the parents of an abducted child will serve to confirm, beyond any reasonable doubt, whatever the authors have written about you. Next, for sure, there will be a TV documentary, based on the book, where the leading scum will be fully exposed to ridicule from the Great British public, whose sympathy and support the McCanns always enjoyed, and whose disgust at your antics will only grow exponentially. Some of you will be publicly named and shamed. I hope your friends and neighbours get to read about you, and spurn you in the street.

Oh, yes, the wheels are about to come flying off your rotten apple cart, and it’s going to be a spectacular mess. I can only say, it’s about time.”

 This “early-bird” entry in the Stop the Myths forum came between two events at the time:

- On Monday, Sept 01 2014, we had the “Sky News Report – Madeleine McCann, the Secret Report”, by Martin Brunt and in which starred Jim Gamble. In it, for no apparent logical reason, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan make the “public debut” of their book “Looking for Madeleine”. We did a post on all this, “Sky News – The Clarifying Report”.

- On Thursday, Sept 11 2014, 10 days later, we had Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan publishing their book “Looking for Madeleine”, sales of which broke all known negative records. The reaction to this book concentrated all attention from blogs/forums in the following 2/3 weeks. We also did a post on this, “Summers by Summers”.

And it happened before on Thursday Oct 02 2014, we were literally bombarded with the “Sky News Special Report – McCann Trolls” by Martin Brunt announcing that SY was investigating internet trolls who tweeted against the McCanns.

This, as we know, led to Brenda Leyland taking her own life 2 days later.

When Vee8/Nessling says “whatever the authors have written about you” shows he knew beforehand the contents of that shameful book by Summers & Swan, as it does indeed contain a chapter about those seeking the truth about the case on the internet.

And by saying “Some of you will be publicly named and shamed. I hope your friends and neighbours get to read about you, and spurn you in the street”, he shows clearly that he also knew, and also beforehand, about Brunt’s piece – the “TV documentary” he mentions – and how viciously Brenda would be named and shamed by the Troll dossier.

Brunt’s piece is indeed not based on the book but as we now know was just slab stone of that campaign path, which began with the Sky News piece on Gamble’s report, followed by the book and then the Troll dossier.

That campaign stopped abruptly with Brenda’s death, so we don’t know where else it would have gone.

A campaign we believe to have been set up by Jim Gamble.

For someone to have said on Sept 7, 4 days before the book was published and 6 days after it got nationwide publicity of its launch by the hands of Martin Brunt on the piece about Gamble’s report that the forthcoming documentary on the Troll dossier was “based on the book” is a natural mistake to make as then the book was the focus of attention in said campaign.

What Vee8/Nessling makes very clear is that there was a foot-soldier, himself, with privileged information beforehand.

We would say that not many would be part of the inner circle of this collusion.

One we believe was coordinated by Gamble and one that used a relevant media outlet as Sky News.

This proximity between Nessling and Gamble is evidently to be taken into account when analysing Nessling’s Ipswich court sentence.

The fact that Nessling was a very important foot-soldier for the other side, is further enhanced by the fact that the Missing Persons Bureau of the NPIA (National Policing Improvement Agency) considered the Forever Searching charity to which he raised funds, to be one of its 2 relevant partners (the other being Reunite International):

Forever Searching, a charity that praised and valued very much the advice from CEOP.

But we’ll deal with CEOP and NPIA when we get to finally write our post on the Operation Task debrief.


8. Nessling’s conviction

We first got to know about Nessling’s conviction from a post from Ben Thompson in the FB group “Justice for Madeleine” on Nov 26 2017 at 21:48

“McCann supporter convicted of downloading 40,000 indecent images of children.

Some of you may recall a blog I wrote in response to lies, smears, and false accusations against Goncalo Amaral, by one of the McCanns' number one supporters - Nigel Nessling:

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.pt/2016/05/nigel-nesslings-51-questions-to-goncalo_14.html

Nessling was recently found guilty of downloading over 40,000 indecent images of children.

Nigel's name can now added to an ever growing list of sinister criminals who actively supported the McCanns. These crimes (Nessling aside), include:

Harassment

Death threats

Stalking and harassment (relating to a survivor of a London terror attack).

As well as the rape of a minor, and sexual assault.

Add to that the active support of convicted child killers, and a desperation amongst many pro McCann to cover up child abuse on the island of Jersey, and the picture we're left ain't a pretty one:

Details of Nessling's conviction on the link below:

https://theukdatabase.com/2017/11/16/nigel-nessling-ipswich/”

This was also published on Nov 16 2017 at 14:01, updated at 14:02 in the Ipswich Star article by Jane Hunt “Ipswich man avoids prison after downloading over 40,000 indecent images of children”:

“When the equipment was analysed it was found to contain 804 still and moving images in the most serious level A category, 818 still and moving level B images and more than 40,000 still and moving images in the lowest level C category.

There were also 3,000 prohibited images of children,.

Nessling, 59, admitted three offences of making indecent images of children and possessing prohibited images of children.

He was given a 16-month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, and ordered to do 150 hours unpaid work in the community.”

The title is quite misleading. It does throw at us the blinding number of 40,000 but to us what matters is that there were the 1,622 pictures involving serious level (B) and very serious level (A).

And if we are to add the further “3,000 prohibited images of children”, that totals having almost 5,000 criminal pictures.

Naturally, people have reacted to the leniency of this sentence, especially taking into account what is validly questioned in the following tweet:

“P_R
@Papa___Rico

Karen Mathews' partner Craig Meehan had 49 indecent #CSA images on his computer & he was jailed for 5 months. Nigel Nessling had 40,000. Today's maths question: How long should Nessling be serving in prison?

 - Why isn't he?

#McCann

12:05 PM · Nov 27, 2017”

We will address this apparent leniency later in the post.

One very interesting thing to notice is that the raid in Nessling’s residence happened on April 11:

“The court heard that police officers went to Nessling’s home in Larchcroft Road, Ipswich, on April 11 and seized items including two laptops, a hard drive and a tower unit.”

March/April this year was that period of time when the other side was desperate and doing all it could to force the government to continue funding Operation Grange after the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court had thrown out the window, on March 21, the pathetic complaint made against it by the McCann legal team.

Then, the interest for the case was significant.

We wrote the post “Oh no, NOT him!”, which got 431 comments and the blog had a record of 96,517 hits that month.

It was at that time that someone, somewhere decided to raid and seize the computers of one of the most notorious and vile pro-McCann supporters.

That ‘somewhere’ must have been high up on the British hierarchy if one simply takes into account the sensitivity of the matter and the amount of protection and immunity that all pros have enjoyed over the years.

That protection, dear readers, ended on April 11. Or, evidently, a few days or weeks before.

The fact is that it ended.

And that is the first important fact that one must take from this episode: someone from the other camp was given a red card and kicked off the game.


9. The strange time lapse

Another thing to be noted is that this Nessling affair didn’t hit the MSM.

Nor the April 11 raid nor the Nov 16 sentencing. However, the Nov 16 sentence got picked up and only then did we get to know about the raid back in April.

However, there seems to be an exaggerated time lapse between the raiding and the sentencing, 219 days, or over 7 months.

The crime is without a doubt a very serious one but it’s also quite a very straightforward one.

Plus, there seems to have been an early admission: “However, he [the judge] felt able to pass a suspended sentence because he [Nessling] had admitted the offences at an early stage and there was sufficient prospect of rehabilitation in his case.”

We’re not seeing then the reason why forensic analysis of his computers took that long, so why we say we think there was an exaggerated time lapse between the raid and the sentencing.

By coincidence a similar case and in the same jurisdiction was reported by the Ipswich Star in its article by Colin Adwent, on April 12 2017 (the raid of Nessling’s house was the day before) “Ipswich man accused of making nearly 50,000 indecent images of children”:

“Joseph Caddick, of Park Road, (…) 36-year-old is charged with distributing an indecent image of a child via a What’s App message on May 10 last year.”

Although the crime happened last year, it was around about April that the police acted on it, otherwise why would a newspaper report something only April 12 if the crime had been reported months before?

The article ends with “Caddick’s case was sent to Ipswich Crown Court for May 9. He was released on conditional bail.”

That means just slightly less than a month after he was charged.

The Ipswich Star updated its readers on this issue in the article published on June 23 by Jane Hunt “Ex-medical student from Ipswich caught with 40,000 indecent images of children” (with thanks to Sade Anslow of the “Justice for Madeleine” FB group) where it’s said that:

“A former medical student who downloaded more than 40,000 indecent images of children has been jailed for two years.

Police officers went to speak to Joseph Caddick after receiving a complaint that he had sent a man in Anglesea Road, Ipswich indecent images of children via a WhatsApp message, Ipswich Crown Court heard.

The man found the images distressing and when police officers examined his phone they found 31 indecent images that had been sent to him by Caddick, said Hugh Vass, prosecuting.

When police officers went to Caddick’s first floor flat they could hear things being thrown out of a window into a car park and when they went in they found he was growing cannabis in a tent.”

Apparently, it took 31 images and several months for the complainant to find the material sent by Caddick to be offensive.

But what we would like to highlight from the above is that Caddick was not as co-operative as Nessling is said to have been.

Yet, the uncooperative one took 72 days to sentence, while the other, who co-operated from the start, took 219 days for that to happen, or 3 times longer. Why?

There’s a difference of treatment for the exact same crime by the exact same court and by the exact same judge, tells us there were 2 separate intents.

It’s as if the Nessling case was after the raid was ‘suddenly’ put on hold, waiting for a better decision, which came in the October/November time period.


10. The leniency

Let’s now look at the apparent leniency of Nessling’s sentence.

Reading only what the Ipswich Star has written about both Caddick and Nessling one cannot conclude there was any leniency

The difference between Caddick and Nessling is that Caddick had been subject to suspended sentence for similar matters before custodial sentence for present offence, whereas Nessling had no previous convictions.

So, although it still raises questions about a lenient sentence for Nessling, compared to others with no previous convictions, it does explain different sentencing for these 2 men.

And if one takes into account that the same judge gave the same suspended sentence to an Essex Police officer for a similar crime, then the leniency issue between Caddick and Nessling seems not to be an issue.

This sentence was reported by the Daily Gazette/Essex County Standard on March 23 2017 in the article “Paedophile Essex Police officer walks free from court... but is then fired”:

“A PAEDOPHILE police officer has walked free from court despite downloading 1,600 indecent images of children.

While his colleagues were carrying out extra patrols to keep the county safe PC Clive Hansen was in court apologising after being caught with some of the most vile and despicable images of child sexual abuse imaginable.

Judge David Goodin referred to the Essex Police officer's "exemplary" conduct previously and urged him to stop looking at this type of "stuff" as he sentenced him to four months in jail, and then suspended the sentence for a year.”

Just for comparison, Hansen was “caught with 17 images at category A, the most extreme abuse, 26 at level B and 1,576 at level C as well as another prohibited image.”

With Caddick:

“Officers seized computer equipment and when it was analysed it was found to have 5,633 indecent images and movies in the most serious level A category, 11,212 level B images and movies and 31,363 images and movies at level C, which is the least serious category.

Caddick, 36, of Park Road, Ipswich, admitted three offences of making indecent images of children, distributing indecent images of children”.

About Caddick’s 2008 suspended sentence, we know it was for similar offences but we don’t know the details, or to be specific, the number of photos of each category he had in his possession then.

With Nessling:

“When the equipment was analysed it was found to contain 804 still and moving images in the most serious level A category, 818 still and moving level B images and more than 40,000 still and moving images in the lowest level C category.

There were also 3,000 prohibited images of children.

Nessling, 59, admitted three offences of making indecent images of children and possessing prohibited images of children. possession of cannabis and producing cannabis.”

But back to Hansen, the article says:

“On November 2 the force received a tip off one of their officers was downloading child abuse images.

Officers went to his home and, when he returned from shift, arrested him and seized a laptop from the married father.”

So, in Hensen’s case, raid on Nov 2 2016 and the sentence on Mar 23 2017. That’s 141 days with the Christmas period in between.

Just below half of the 219 days it took to sentence Nessling, confirming the unexplained time lapse we have already mentioned.

But, in terms of leniency, by reading ONLY what is in the papers, the leniency seems to be similar in the 3 cases, so it can’t be said, knowing only this, that Nessling was given any favour.


11. Aggravating circumstances

However, there are aggravating circumstances to Nessling that differentiates him from the other 2.

Nessling admitted to the court of having started being interested in pictures of unquestionable criminal nature: “Nigel Nessling told police he initially saw an image of an eight-year-old girl and thought she was “pretty and cute” and became obsessed with viewing indecent images of children over a period of seven or eight years, Ipswich Crown Court heard.”

A period of 7 or 8 years would make this initiation to be around 2009/2010. One must remember that Vee8 was a handle used by a very vile character before that:

We wouldn’t be surprised if we were to find out that Nessling was on the paedo radar long before he admitted to the court having started viewing absolutely criminal images.

And if one takes into account, as one should, his proximity with Gamble of CEOP, we really would not be surprised at all if that ‘long before’ happened many years before Maddie disappeared.

All speculation, of course.

The Ipswich court presented the following reasons to be lenient to Nessling:

“Sentencing Nessling, Judge David Goodin said: “You plainly have it in you to be a decent, responsible member of society.”

He told Nessling, who is a father and a grandfather with no previous convictions, that the offences he had committed clearly crossed the custody threshold.

However, he felt able to pass a suspended sentence because he had admitted the offences at an early stage and there was sufficient prospect of rehabilitation in his case.

Roger Thomson, for Nessling, said his client had taken part in a course to address his offending behaviour and was determined to put what he had done behind him.

He said Nessling had a good work record and was taking anti-depressants.”

Let us repeat some of the words above, said by a legitimate member of the British justice system, in a legitimate court of law when about to sentence Nigel Nessling: “You plainly have it in you to be a decent, responsible member of society.”

We have here before disagreed with legitimate decisions of a justice system, that of the Portuguese one.

However, even in disagreement and after making an effort, we explained how it could be understood how they came to be.

To be specific, we disagreed on 2 occasions: with the archiving  decision of the process in July 2008 and with the acórdão of the 1st Instance Court on the McCann v Amaral Lisbon trial.

About the first we said it could have been due to the fact that no new element was introduced to the interim conclusions that favoured a prosecution.

Being the Sept 2007 decision and the interim one, that by definition meant it required further confirmation.

But the only relevant new element introduced in the process was the FSS report that although not exempting the McCanns it did not condemn them with sufficient clarity.

With that, we think the prosecutor interpreted that this ‘lack of updating’ to the interim decision meant the process did not possess the required solidity required for an effective prosecution, and so dispatched for it to be archived. Archived, not closed.

About the second decision, the 1st Instance Court judge came up with a possibility – him being bound to professional secrecy when he wrote it – which she legitimately could and which, according to her made Mr Amaral’s book an illegality and so decided in favour of the McCanns. We disagreed with her but could see a legitimate reason for her decision.

What we cannot find a reason for is for the Ipswich court to have found in any way that Nigel Nessling could PLAINLY have it in him to be a decent, responsible member of society.

We’re not only speaking about him having in his possession the 804 still and moving paedo images involving penetrative sexual activity, of images involving sexual activity with an animal or sadism:

Because those are what Category A paedo images are. The kind of images Nessling confessed to possess.

What we are talking about is what had to be added to that by the court and evidently wasn’t.

Something that had to be found on his computers, impossible to have been missed.

Obviously, they were subject to a detailed forensic analysis and so impossible for the police to have missed all the vitriol and repugnant bile that this man certainly had on his laptop as the result of his active and repulsive participation as a contemptible and horrid pro-McCann supporter.

We simply cannot see how the contents of a computer of a man obsessed with paedophilia and the contents of his computer pointing towards him having heinous and hateful behavioural nature against others for him to have been considered by the court to PLAINLY have it in him be a decent, responsible member of society.

In our opinion, Nigel Nessling did not deserve the leniency given by the court. He’s even more odious than the other 2 and that’s quite an abominable achievement taking into account we’re comparing him with 2 individuals possessing Category A child indecency images.

The arguments presented by the court to justify the leniency shown are either detached from reality or, as is most likely, this information contained on his computer was withheld from the judge.

Having said that, let us be very clear that although we don't agree with the lightness of the sentence given to Nessling nor are able to find a justification for it, it doesn’t mean we don’t recognise it as legitimate. We do.

We think that’s up to the justice system of a sovereign country to regulate itself and correct whatever it thinks is wrong.

We simply give our opinion but we’ll always abide by what is legitimate.

The leniency shown to Nessling, either because of the court’s detachment from reality or because relevant information was withheld from it by the police, only makes sense if the idea was to soften the blow that the man was due.

To have him only sentenced and not exactly to have him punished.

And from what we know from the case, the political implications it has and the high level of the people we can only imagine are involved, Nessling only faced that court because he was dropped.

The people protecting the pro-McCann people would never allow for Nessling to have faced charges.

If he faced them, as he did, it was because someone threw him into the arena.


12. The internal memo

Having set out extensively what we wanted let’s then give our interpretation of what this Nessling episode means to the case.

We think it had internal and external objectives.

Please note that with Nessling 2 things happened: one was the raid, which happened back in April and the other the sentencing now in November.

The first, was totally unreported and unnoticed. Do note the Ipswich Star reports on April 12 that Caddick had been charged but says absolutely nothing about what had happened to Nessling just the day before.

We didn’t get to know about it. Nor did we get to know what motivated the raid on Nessling.

With Caddick and Hansen we got to know what originated them having the authorities entering their homes but with Nessling we were just told the police raided his residence. No reason given how they found out he had paedo material on his computers. If it was a complaint or if was already under surveillance.

The raid on Nessling’s home was not meant to be noticed. It was meant to be a message sent on an ‘internal memo’. To be consumed internally, not for the public to know.

And internally we think the message had 2 sub-objectives.

The first was to show to the other side, with no publicity but with clarity that paedos were no longer no longer off-limits.

That day it was foot-soldier Nessling’s turn, tomorrow it can be another foot-soldier or it can be a ‘ranked’ someone.

It served as just one more warning to all other little people who have helped the hoax all these years that they are to be consumed if anyone playing the game finds the need to do so.

We have seen this warning before with Jane Tanner, with the Ghoul Tour blogger and with recently with Pillowman and his Woman-in- Purple.

Little people will always be seen as really tiny by the powerful and each one of them must realise that there’s a bus with their name on it.

The only question they must ask themselves is if their bus leaves the parking lot, a decision that is taken without their knowledge. If it does, then best is to be prepared to feel the push on the back.

But we digress, the first internal sub-objective was to show the other side that paedophilia was now game.


13. Target Gamble

The second internal sub-objective was to target Gamble.

By choosing someone close to him, it was like showing a red-card to a player on the bench while looking in the eye of the manager sitting next to him.

And this is not done to confront or affront the manager but to make sure the owners of the club see the referee kick the player (Nessling) off the field while looking at the manager (Gamble).

The player and the manager are mere tools used to ‘speak’ to those who matter, the club owners. They are the ones witnessing what is going down on the pitch, absorbing all while sitting in stands and drawing their own conclusions from what is happening on the field.

A manager may conceive the tactics and decide who plays and how they play. He may even be the face of the team, the one accountable for the club’s failures and the one praised for its successes but it’s the owners who own the club. The ones who hire and fire the managers.

Please do take into account that we think this targeting in April wasn’t meant to be known to the public. We believe that the decision to make the Nessling thing available to be picked up and propagated all over the social media was recent.

By hitting too close to Gamble for comfort, the government has put the other side in serious difficulties.

And it’s been quite effective. We are no longer the only ones mentioning Gamble. His name is now being associated by many with background games being played in the Maddie case.


14. The external objectives

As we have said, there were two Nessling-related events, the raid and the sentencing.

The first was unreported and unnoticed. The second, although not in the MSM, was left where it could be found and it was found.

The time between the 2 events, the Nessling case lay in a limbo as we have said.

We believe that if the June snap-elections had gone according to plan, nothing would have been found on Nessling’s computer.

The case would have been archived and the man would continue to enjoy the protection and immunity that we think he has had for years.

But the elections didn’t go the way May was made to believe they would go. We have in our post “Summer Games” shown why we think the government and the other side parted ways since then.

Now, someone has decided to take Nessling out of limbo and make the case public.

Note, not too public, just where it could be found.

If it went too public then the road of no return would have been taken.

Just imagine the attention the unfortunate Brenda Leyland got for being reported as an anti-McCann, which was nothing that can even be remotely compared with the grotesque Nigel Nessling if the MSM was told to unleash the dogs on him.

The tidal wave would be unstoppable. If the MSM showed to have only half of the fervour for Nessling that they showed to have for Brenda, then there would be nothing able to stop the general public from demanding the truth, or else.

But the fact that MSM has not picked up the issue yet doesn’t mean it won’t.

The threat is there. Very clearly there. The pressure on the other side colossal.

Plus, by ‘leaving it around’ to be found, whoever decided to have Nessling sentenced in a court of law, thus making it all so subtly public, relied on the social media to propagate it.

And the social media did just that.

The intended effect was by conjugating the reinforcement of the paedophilia in the case, with the apparent leniency of Nessling’s sentence what the public would capture is that when it comes to the Maddie case, children are simply irrelevant and what matters is that her parents must be protected.

To deepen the idea in society’s brain that the McCanns and their friends are child abusers and the whole protection racket is about hiding such an ignominious crime.

Is this bad? No, because it means that under such circumstances to archive the case without conclusion would be not only assuming all we said last week but now also an assumption of protecting paedophiles.

The other side being shown that all is one MSM story on Nessling, or any on other paedo, making it unsustainable to archive the case now, even shambolically.


15. Conclusion

The other’s side edifice has been eroded blow after blow and this Nessling blow was quite the blow.

It was too close to home for comfort and has now left all other foot-soldiers having to worry about their own backs as they don’t know if they are to be the next turkey to be chosen to be served for Christmas. Or for any other ‘event’ that may simply just pop up before or after that will require a bird on a silver platter to be carved

It has made Gamble lose a relevant asset to use tactically as Nessling has definitely been kicked off the game without parole.

And it has made Gamble fragile in the eyes of his masters, not because they are surprised that he recruited from the bottom of the barrel – that was expected – but because he has now lost once and for all the status of untouchable, as one of the sides of the game has now shown not to fear whatever he thought they would.

This Nessling blow was one we think has made all just be ready to be tipped.

And because of Nessling and his paedophilia which has deepened significantly the link between it and the cover-up, this toppling is not towards the shambolic archival but the truth.

In fact, the outing of the truth would now be a relief, as it will let the public see that it was all about adult hanky-panky and no children were sexually harmed.

Except those exploited by Nessling and the likes of him.

But that is the cover-up using paedophilia to help and not paedophilia being the reason for the cover-up.

Although highly condemnable, it’s one thing to use a paedophile to help, but to be used to help a paedophile, or better said a nepiophile, is a completely different degree of heinousness.

And only truth is able to clarify that.




Post-Scriptum:

It seems fate has pushed us to write the post about the Operation Task debrief to after Christmas.

We would like to believe that it is fate wanting us to receive a big Christmas present that would make us not have to write it.

After all, the way we see things, if the truth about Maddie was allowed to celebrate Christmas we would have to rethink if there is really the need to write about that debrief.

Maybe wishful thinking on our part but, we hope, also food for thought for some.

We wish all our readers a Merry Christmas and a Happy 2018.